Privit wrote:You made your statement, are you now hoping someone will fire your bullet for you?

All I did was follow your link to find a diatribe against someone who I have never heard of, but who is described as "a bit of an old woman and former nobody, with a king size chip on his shoulder and more money than sense".

Whether it's libelous or not probably depends on whether this 'old woman' has a reputation to defend... Or perhaps there's some insider joke going on here that I'm too thick to understand.

Privit wrote:You made your statement, are you now hoping someone will fire your bullet for you?

All I did was follow your link to find a diatribe against someone who I have never heard of, but who is described as "a bit of an old woman and former nobody, with a king size chip on his shoulder and more money than sense".

Whether it's libelous or not probably depends on whether this 'old woman' has a reputation to defend... Or perhaps there's some insider joke going on here that I'm too thick to understand.

He'll probably sue us then. It's none of your business either way. In future when we want your "expert" opnion, we will tell you what it is.

This is all very amusing but it is pushing another issue to the fore. The charges levied by LA’s under the ASBO act are quite substantial and there is a reason for that. People with a genuine complaint will of course be annoyed that the last hurdle for something that has been a thorn for many years involves paying a chunk of cash out.

If it didn’t people might (would) use the ASBO act as a vexation to others. If that happened the waiting lists would be huge, enormous and vast, and genuinely affected parties would suffer intolerable waits.

The charge was to be anticipated. It would be difficult to imagine the system working any other way. Without saying told you so I did try to bring this to people’s attention on the forum (pre crash)

The people who are complaining loudest probably expected to be able to use the ASBO act as a tool to visit some of tier own suffering back on the hedge owner and lost sight of the bigger picture.

Treeman wrote:
The charge was to be anticipated. It would be difficult to imagine the system working any other way. Without saying told you so I did try to bring this to people’s attention on the forum (pre crash)

The people who are complaining loudest probably expected to be able to use the ASBO act as a tool to visit some of tier own suffering back on the hedge owner and lost sight of the bigger picture.Treeman

The voice of reason at last. We could not have put your points over any better. There has been the first success, and it was a justifiable complaint, so you see, it works as it was meant to for those with a genuine complaint. (Daily Mail 22.8.05) In the words of Chris Tarrant. "Well done everybody"

Oh sod it.. David S will be telling me that Tarrant has joined the queue to sue us. Don't be silly. I am Chris Tarrant. !!

In answer to Treema's post, the minister said that the fact that the High Hedge legislation went through on the back of ASBOs did not mean that those with high hedges merited asbo action - it was just a speedy way of getting high hedge legislation through. They did not want to lose it after all the effort that had been expended on it.

syckend wrote:In answer to Treema's post, the minister said that the fact that the High Hedge legislation went through on the back of ASBOs did not mean that those with high hedges merited asbo action - it was just a speedy way of getting high hedge legislation through. They did not want to lose it after all the effort that had been expended on it.

The Vehicle for the HH legislation is largely irrelevant. The effect of the HH legislation is to get a height reduction in a hedge. If it were easy to intrude into a neighbour’s life, there are people who would abuse the legislation. This would be the case were the legislation part of ASBO or “stand alone”.

I sympathise with anyone who suffers and I am sure that in genuine cases where hardship is a factor costs will be waved. Get your local councillor on the job for that.

I am not one to ask you to change your tune but by and large I prefer the dialler tones rogue or otherwise. Would you consider changing that hideous lounge music for something else?

Please

Treeman

"Change your tune" Yes, yes, a sense of humor at last. Just for you I will temporarily put the dialer sound back again. It's a wav sound folks. Nothing is being dialed. Got it? No spies, no subversion, no hidden agenda, not even a reason for it to be there apart from as a "welcome" to the page.

For those who don't read the newspapers, go to http://www.hedgeline.net/siuccesses.html where you will see that the first Order was granted on behalf of Stroud District Council Gloucestershire. This is why we can't understand the continuing venom from some quarters when the legislation is working just fine.

There are photos of the hedge, view, etc, in question in the Daily Mail 22.8.005 who have supported this legislation throughout, without getting "Polaroid" about things as seems to be the unfortunate trend with some "victims".